Pages

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Gun-Grabber Dianne Feinstein In 1995 "I Carried A Concealed Weapon"

The senior of California's two arrogant far-Left senators, Dianne Feinstein, was one of the leading buzzards who just couldn't wait after the tragic Sandy Hook Elementary shooting to exploit that tragedy to disarm law-abiding citizens of their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

"Less than twenty years ago I was the target of a terrorist group. It was the
New World Liberation Front. They blew up power stations and put a bomb at my
home when my husband was dying of cancer. And the bomb didn't detonate. [...] I
was very lucky. But, I thought of what might have happened. Later the same group
shot out all the windows of my home. [...] And, I know the sense of helplessness
that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I
was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I
carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going
to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me."

But today, Dianne Feinstein doesn't want law abiding citizens to have that ability. Because, just like after 9/11, law abiding Americans must be punished, either by Obama's thuggish TSA, or by liberals who think you cannot be trusted to own and use a firearm to protect yourself. And as has been said, when someone breaks into your home, you only have seconds to act, while it will take a few minutes for the police to arrive.

So, the good liberals and moderate Republicans pass laws like "gun free zones" (which Sandy Hill Elementary was one), in order to stop violence. But do they? (Gun Watch).

During the height of gun control fever during the first Bush Presidency, the Congress passed the Gun Free School Zones act of 1990. It was designed to make it impossible for ordinary people to carry guns most places, because it forbid the carrying of guns within a thousand feet of a school. If you overlap the 1000 foot gun free zones that surround schools in most cities and towns, no one can go about their daily business without intersecting one of these zones at some time.

The Gun Free School Zone act was quickly challenged in the courts, and found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court under the interstate commerce clause, in U.S. v. Lopez, 1995. The reasoning was simple: If merely possessing a gun within a thousand feet of a school was interstate commerce, and therefore subject to federal regulation, what could possibly be construed as not interstate commerce? Virtually everything would then be controlled by the federal government. As the Constitution means something, the interstate commerce clause must mean something. If all of life can be controlled by the federal government, the clause means nothing.

President Clinton blew a gasket when the Gun Free School Zone act was found unconstitutional. He fiercely lobbied congress to pass a replica act, slightly modified. He threatened to keep congress from adjourning to go home to run for office if they did not pass the replica act. They passed the new Gun Free School Zone act in 1996. Since then, federal prosecutors have been very careful not to prosecute many cases under the act, not wanting to present the Supreme Court with another test case.

The results of the Gun Free School Zone act’s passage have been devastating. The first mass school shooting occurred in 1997. As prominent researcher John Lott has noted, mass shooters are attracted to defenseless victim zones. While zones that ban armed citizens are a tiny percentage of the nation’s area, according to Lott, only one of the “successful” (four or more victims) mass shootings in the past thirty years occurred outside of a defenseless victim zone (gun free zone).

Why do mass shooters chose defenseless victim zones? Because they want the fame that goes with the media attention that a mass killer gets, and to get the attention, they have to kill a lot of people. If they are stopped by an armed citizen, they lose their chance to make the “record books”, and there is no point in mass killing.

So, we can thank moderate George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton for insisting that there be a new "gun free zone" law that helped act as a magnet for psychotic mass murderers.

“Indisputable statistics show clearly that gun free zones around the globe are
always where the most innocent human lives are slaughtered,” insists Nugent, who
is on the board of the National Rifle Association.

...“Unarmed and helpless is
unarmed and helpless,” Nugent insisted. “That so much of our society is
entrenched in the irresponsible mindset that unarmed and helpless is an okay
condition is inviting such multiple shooting tragedies.”

Nugent said that
he dreams of a society where “political correctness and the sheep like behavior
that goes with it are discarded” and he drew comparisons to the 9/11 attacks,
which called attention to the need for greater air travel
security.

“Surely there must be teachers somewhere, like professional
pilots after 9-11, that would be willing to be armed, trained and prepared to
protect innocent children in their care,” he said.

Nugent added that most
mass shootings occur in jurisdictions with “extreme restrictions” on
firearms.

“But most telling, again, is the fact that they have all
occurred in gun free zones or where for many reasons, no one was armed or
prepared to stop the evil doer,” Nugent said.

Nugent gave a great interview back in 2008 to Texas Monthly on gun control, and his reasoning is simple and clear for anyone with two brain cells to understand.

Ted's had some choice words for anti-gun liberals at his concerts as well (NSFW - language warning).

So what about it, Dianne? Why is it OK for you to have carried a concealed weapon but the rest of us rubes can't, if you have your way?